Comrades, if I wanted to find confirmation of what was said in my first speech regarding the character of the revolutionary war being proposed to us, the report of the representative of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries{51} would give me the very best and most vivid confirmation, and I think it will be most expedient if I cite his speech from the stenographic record and we shall see what arguments they advance in support of their positions. (Reads from the stenographic record.)

Here you have a sample of what arguments they rely upon. There was talk here of a volost assembly{52}. Those to whom this assembly seems like a volost assembly may resort to such arguments, but it is clear that here people are repeating our words, yet they are unable to think them through. People repeat what the Bolsheviks taught the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries when they were still among the Right ones, and when they speak, you can see that they have memorized what we said, but they did not understand what it was based on, and now they repeat it. Tsereteli and Chernov were defensists, and now we are defensists, we are "traitors," we are "betrayers." Servants of the bourgeoisie speak here of a volost assembly—they make faces when they say it—but every worker understands perfectly the aims of the defensism that guided Tsereteli and Chernov, and the motives that compel us to be defensists.

If we were to support Russian capitalists who wanted to obtain the Dardanelles, Armenia, Galicia, as was written in the secret treaty, that would be defensism in the spirit of Chernov and Tsereteli, and that defensism was disgraced then, but now our defensism is honorable. (Applause.)

And when, alongside such arguments, I encounter twice in the stenographic record of Kamkov's speech the word repeated, that Bolsheviks are—agents of German imperialism (applause from the right), a harsh word—I am very glad that all those who pursued Kerensky's policy underscore this with their applause. (Applause.) And surely, comrades, it is not for me to object to harsh words. I shall never object to that. Only, to be harsh, one must have the right to be so, and the right to harshness is given by the fact that words do not diverge from deeds. And here is such a small condition, which many intellectuals do not value, but which workers and peasants both at volost assemblies—it is so paltry, a volost assembly—and in Soviet organizations have grasped, and with them word and deed coincide. But we know perfectly well that these Left Socialist-Revolutionaries sat in the party of the Right Socialist-Revolutionaries until October, when they were sharing the spoils, when they were agents, because they were promised the post of minister in exchange for keeping silent about all the secret treaties. (Applause.) But one cannot call agents of imperialism people who have proclaimed war on it as a deed, who have torn up treaties, who have taken the risks involved, who proceeded to protract negotiations at Brest, knowing that this was ruining the country, who endured military offensive, a series of unprecedented defeats, and concealed not a trace of this from the people.

Here Martov assured us that he had not read the treaty. Let whoever wishes believe him. We know that these people are accustomed to reading many newspapers, but they did not read the treaty. (Applause.) Let whoever wishes believe it. But I will tell you that if the Socialist-Revolutionary party knows perfectly well that we are yielding to violence, fully exposed by us, that we are doing this consciously, openly saying that we cannot fight now, but we are yielding—history knows a series of most shameful treaties and a series of wars—when in response to this people present the word "agents," then this harshness of theirs exposes them, when they assure us that they are removing their responsibility, that they are doing—is this not hypocrisy, when people remove responsibility and continue to be in government? I assert that when they say they are removing responsibility—no, they are not removing it, and it is in vain that they think this is a volost assembly. No, this is all that is best and honest among the laboring masses. (Applause.) This is not a bourgeois parliament, where once or twice a year people are elected so that they sit in their seats and receive a salary. These are people sent from the localities, and tomorrow they will be in the localities, tomorrow they will tell whether the voices of the Left Socialist-Revolutionary party are fading, then this is deservedly so, because this party, which conducts itself thus, is the same soap bubble in the peasantry as it turned out to be in the working class. (Applause, voices: "Correct!")

Next I will cite one more passage from Kamkov's speech to show how any representative of the laboring and exploited masses relates to this. "When comrade Lenin yesterday asserted here that comrades Tsereteli and Chernov and others were decomposing the army, surely we shall not find the courage to say that we too were decomposing the army along with Lenin." Missed the mark entirely. (Applause.) He heard that we were defeatists, and recalled this precisely when we had ceased to be defeatists. He remembered at the wrong time. They have learned a little phrase, it's a revolutionary rattle, but they are unable to think through how matters actually stand. (Applause.) I assert that out of a thousand volost assemblies where Soviet power has taken root, that out of a thousand of these assemblies, in more than nine hundred there are people who will tell the Left Socialist-Revolutionary party that it deserves no trust. They will say, think about it: we decomposed the army and now we must recall this. But how did we decompose the army? We were defeatists under the tsar, but under Tsereteli and Chernov we were not defeatists. We published in Pravda an appeal which Krylenko, then still being persecuted, published throughout the army: "Why I am going to Petrograd." He said: "To mutinies we do not call you." This was not decomposition of the army. The army was decomposed by those who declared this war a great one.

Tsereteli and Chernov decomposed the army, because the people were told magnificent words, which various Left Socialist-Revolutionaries are accustomed to throw to the wind. Words weigh lightly, but the Russian people at volost assemblies are accustomed to think through things and take them seriously. If they were told that we are striving for peace and discussing the conditions of an imperialist war, then I ask: what about the secret treaties and the June offensive? That is how the army was decomposed. If they were told of a struggle against imperialists, of defense of the fatherland, they asked themselves: but are capitalists being taken by the scruff of the neck anywhere?—that is how the army was decomposed, and that is why I said, and no one refuted me, that the salvation of the army would have been if we had taken power in March and April and if, instead of the wild hatred of the exploiters because we suppressed them—they hate us quite legitimately—if instead of this they had placed the interests of the fatherland of the laboring and exploited above the interests of Kerensky's fatherland and the secret treaties of Ryabushinsky and the designs on Armenia, Galicia, and the Dardanelles—in that would have been salvation, and in this regard, beginning with the great Russian revolution, and especially from March, when a halfway appeal was issued to the peoples of all countries{53}, the government that issued an appeal calling to overthrow the bankers of all countries while itself dividing revenues and advantages with the bankers—that is what decomposed the army, and that is why the army could not hold. (Applause.)

And I assert that we, beginning with this appeal of Krylenko, which was not the first{54} and which I recall because it especially impressed itself upon my memory, we did not decompose the army, but said: hold the front—the sooner you take power, the easier you will hold it, and to say now that we are against civil war and for uprising—how unworthy this is and what contemptible babble from people. When this reaches the villages and when there soldiers, who have seen war not as intellectuals have, and who know that it is easy only to wave a cardboard sword, when they say that those who were barefoot, undressed, and suffering received help in the critical moment by being sent into the offensive—they now tell them that nothing will come of it, that there will be no army, only an uprising. To drive people against a regular army with superior technique—this is criminal, and this is what we taught as socialists. War has taught much, not only that people suffered, but that victory goes to those who have the greatest technique, organization, discipline, and the best machines; war has taught this, and it is good that it has. One must learn that without machines, without discipline, one cannot live in modern society—either one must overcome superior technique, or be crushed. Indeed, years of the most painful suffering have taught peasants what war is. And when everyone with their speeches goes to volost assemblies, when the Left Socialist-Revolutionary party goes there, it will bear fully deserved punishment. (Applause.)

Another example, another citation from Kamkov's speech. (Reads.)

It is sometimes astonishingly easy to pose questions; but there is one saying—it is impolite and crude—which speaks of such questions—you cannot erase the words from a song—I will recall it: one fool can ask more than ten clever men can answer. (Applause, noise.)

Comrades, in this citation which I have read to you, I am invited to answer the question: will there be a respite of one week, two weeks, or more? I assert that at every volost assembly and at each factory, a man who, in the name of a serious party, will come forward to the people with such a question will be mocked and driven away by the people, because at every volost assembly they will understand that one cannot ask questions about what cannot be known. Any worker and peasant will understand this. (Applause.) If you want an answer without fail, then I will tell you that, of course, any Left Socialist-Revolutionary writing in newspapers or speaking at meetings will say what this period depends on: on when Japan attacks, with what forces, what resistance it will encounter; on how much the German becomes bogged down in Finland, in Ukraine; on when the offensive comes on all fronts; on how it develops; on how the internal conflict in Austria and Germany unfolds further, and on many other causes besides. (Applause.)

And therefore, when with an air of triumph at a serious assembly one asks such a question: answer me, what respite?—I say that such people will be driven from workers' and peasants' assemblies by those who understand that after a painful three-year war, every week of respite is the greatest blessing. (Applause.) And I assert that however much we are cursed here now, if tomorrow one were to gather all those curses that have rained down upon us from the right, almost-right, near-right, Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, Cadets, Mensheviks, if one were to gather them all and print them, if it came to hundreds of poods, all of this would weigh to me like a feather compared to the fact that in our Bolshevik faction, nine-tenths of its representatives have said: we know war and we see that now, when we have granted this short respite, this is a plus in the healing of our ailing army. And at every peasant assembly nine-tenths of the peasants will say what anyone interested in the matter knows, and we have not rejected and do not reject any practical proposal when we can help with something.

We have obtained the opportunity to catch our breath, even if only for twelve days, thanks to the policy that went against revolutionary phrase-mongering and "public" opinion. When Kamkov and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries flirt with you and make faces, then on the one hand they make faces at you, and on the other hand they appeal to the Cadets: credit us with this, we are with you in spirit. (Voice from the floor: "A lie!") And when one of the representatives of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, it seemed even not Left, but super-left, a Maximalist, spoke about phrase-mongering, he said that everything relating to honor is phrase-mongering. (Voice: "Correct!") Well, of course, from the right camp they will cry "correct"; this exclamation is more pleasant to me than the cry "a lie," though the latter makes no impression on me either. But if I were to accuse them of phrase-mongering without giving any clear and precise confirmation, well then I have given two examples and I took them not from invention but from living history.

Recall, did not the representatives of the Socialist-Revolutionaries find themselves in the same position when in 1907 they gave a pledge to Stolypin that they would serve with faith and truth to the monarch Nicholas II? I hope that over the long years of the revolution I have learned something, and when I am reviled for betrayal, I say: one must first understand history. If we wanted to turn history around—and it turns out that we turned around, but history did not—then execute us. One cannot convince history with words, and history will show that we were right, that we led the workers' organizations out in the Great October Revolution of 1917, but only because we went beyond phrase-mongering and were able to look at facts, learn from them, and when now, March 14–15, it became clear that if we had fought, we would have helped imperialism, we would have finished off transport and lost Petrograd—we see that throwing words about and waving a cardboard sword is useless. But when Kamkov comes up to me and asks: "How long will this respite last?"—this cannot be answered, because there was no international objective revolutionary situation. There cannot be a long respite for reaction now, because the objective situation everywhere is revolutionary, because everywhere workers' masses are indignant, on the edge of patience, on the edge of exhaustion from war—this is a fact. One cannot escape from this fact, and therefore I proved to you that there was a period when the revolution marched forward, and we marched at the fore and behind us the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries kept up like a rooster. (Applause.) But now a period has come when one must retreat before an overwhelming force. This is a completely concrete characterization. No one will answer me on this. Historical analysis should confirm it. So with respect to the volost assembly our Marxist, almost-Marxist, Martov will have his say; he will have his say about the closing of newspapers; he will boast that the oppressed and aggrieved newspapers were closed because they help overthrow Soviet power, he will have his say (applause)... He will not remain silent about this. Such things he will present to you, but an attempt to answer my directly posed historical question, whether this is true or not, that we have marched in triumphal procession from October or not... (Voices from the right: "No.") You will say that "no," and all these people will say "yes." I ask: and now can we march in a victorious procession against international imperialism? We cannot, and everyone knows this. When one speaks this—a direct, simple statement—directly to people's faces, so that people learn revolution—revolution is a wise, difficult, and complex science—so that both workers and peasants, who make it, learn, enemies shout: cowards, traitors, abandoned the banner, get away with words, wave their hands. No. All the histories of revolutions have seen many such phrasemaking revolutionaries, and nothing but stench and smoke has remained from them. (Applause.)

Another example, comrades, which I cited, was the example of Germany, Germany oppressed by Napoleon, Germany that had seen shameful peaces and interspersed with them wars. I am asked: how long will we observe treaties? But if a three-year-old child were to ask me: will you observe the treaty or not?—then this would be both charming and naive. But when an adult Kamkov from the party of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries asks this, I know that few adult workers and peasants will believe in the naiveté, but the majority will say: "Do not play the hypocrite." For the historical example which I cited speaks clear as day, that wars of liberation of peoples that have lost their army—and this has happened more than once—peoples crushed to the complete loss of all their land, crushed to the point that they were giving auxiliary corps to the conqueror for new conquests—this cannot be erased from history, and you will not scrape it away with anything. But when the Left Socialist-Revolutionary Kamkov, objecting to me, said, as I saw from the stenographic record: "there were revolutionary wars in Spain," so he confirmed me, he beat himself with that. Precisely Spain and Germany confirm my example, that it is impossible to decide the question of an historical period of conquest wars on the basis of "will you observe the treaty, and when you break it, when you are caught..."—after all, this is fit only for children, but history tells us that every treaty is caused by a pause in struggle and a change in the balance of forces, that there have been peace treaties that burst apart after a few days, that there have been peace treaties that burst apart after a month, that there have been periods of many years when Germany and Spain concluded peace and after a few months broke it, and broke it several times over, and in a series of wars peoples learned what it means to conduct wars. When Napoleon led German armies to stifle other peoples, he taught them revolutionary war. This is how history proceeded.

That is why I tell you, comrades, I am deeply convinced that the decision rendered by nine-tenths of our Bolshevik faction{55} will be rendered by nine-tenths of all conscious laboring workers and peasants of Russia. (Applause.)

We have verification of whether what I have said is true or whether I am mistaken, for you will come to the localities and each of you will tell the local Soviets, and everywhere there will be local decisions. In conclusion I will say: do not fall for provocation. (Applause.) The bourgeoisie knows what it is doing, the bourgeoisie knows why it rejoiced in Pskov, rejoiced these days in Odessa, the bourgeoisie of Vinnichenkos, the Ukrainian Kerenskys, Tsereteli and Chernov. It rejoiced because it understood perfectly what a gigantic error in diplomacy, in assessing the moment, Soviet power made in attempting to wage war with a fleeing, ailing army. The bourgeoisie is dragging you into a trap of war. Not only to advance, but also to retreat one must do. Every soldier knows this. Understand that the bourgeoisie is dragging both you and us into a trap. Understand that all the bourgeoisie and all its willing and unwilling accomplices are setting this trap. You will be able to endure the heaviest defeats and preserve the most difficult positions and, by retreating, gain time. Time works for us. Once the imperialists have gorged themselves, they will burst, but in their belly a new giant is growing; he grows more slowly than we wish, but he is growing, he will come to our aid, and when we see that he is beginning his first blow, then we will say: the time of retreat has ended, the epoch of world offensive begins and the epoch of victory of the world socialist revolution. (Stormy, long-continuing applause.)